Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Clause 1

Amount to be specified as upper earnings limit: Great Britain

David Gauke: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 2, leave out from ‘In’ to end of line 5 and insert
‘section 5(3)(b) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (c. 4) (earnings limits and thresholds for Class 1 contributions), omit the word “half”.’.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out from ‘In’ to end of line 18 and insert
‘section 5(3)(b) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act (Northern Ireland) 1992 (c. 7) (earnings limits and thresholds for Class 1 contributions), omit the word “half”.’.

David Gauke: May I say, Mr. Chope, that it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship—there was no opportunity to say that formally in the morning’s evidence session? I also thank the Financial Secretary and her officials for their assistance this morning. It is the first time that I have conducted an evidence session of that sort, and I think the same goes for the Financial Secretary. It was an interesting experience, enjoyed by some but possibly not by others.
Before discussing amendments Nos. 1 and 5 in detail and what precisely we are trying to do, it might be helpful to touch upon the broader issue that we discussed this morning. Although we welcome the simplification of the system and share the Government’s view that the objective of aligning national insurance with income tax is desirable, one of our concerns, which we seek to address with amendment No. 1, is that the way in which the Bill is drafted could lead to a substantial reduction in Parliament’s ability to scrutinise legislation in those areas.
As we discussed this morning and questioned the officials, national insurance contributions—their rates and thresholds—are generally amended by secondary legislation within a framework of restrictions laid out in primary legislation. One of those restrictions is that the upper earnings limit must be between six and half and seven and a half times the primary threshold. That restriction is being taken away. I put it to the Financial Secretary this morning that she was “dismantling” those restrictions—a word that she did not disagree with. We are left in a position in which a Government are capable of increasing the upper earnings limit through a simple affirmative resolution procedure, which has not previously been possible. Consequently, personal taxation could be increased by 11 per cent. for all earnings over £43,000, with very little parliamentary scrutiny.
Some Members might welcome that as a desirable policy. My point is not to argue the pros and cons of that particular policy but to argue that it would be wrong to make such an increase without proper parliamentary scrutiny. It is worth stressing that there is a strong body of opinion within the governing party that there is an argument for increasing tax rates. I will not dwell on that, but there is the Fabian Society paper “Narrowing the Gap”, launched in March 2006 by the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, which called for a 50p top rate tax. Also the Exchequer Secretary—who spoke on Second Reading—was asked, at a Fabian society fringe event at the last Labour party conference, if her party faced a challenge from its opponents regarding the top end of the tax scale; she replied that it did and that she for one hoped that they would be doing a bit of talking about it. Here is an easy way of legislating for just that—one affirmative resolution and we can have, effectively, a 52 per cent. top rate band.

Rob Marris: Can the hon. Gentleman talk us through that a bit more? My understanding is that if one takes, for example, the lower earnings limit of £100 which, using the current ratio of seven and a half, would cap the upper earnings limit at £750 a week, and then one changes that ratio to eight and a half, the figure would go up from £750 to £850. For some taxpayers that would, in fact, be a tax cut, because the point at which they would start to pay 40 per cent. tax would move from £750 to £850 a week. Is that not contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said?

David Gauke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He could easily bring me on to one of the other amendments. To answer briefly, there is nothing in the Bill that means that an increase in the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions will also mean an automatic increase of the point at which people will start to pay higher rate income tax. We will discuss that in greater detail in a few minutes. Were such a thing to exist, his logic would be absolutely right. But it does not exist and therefore it would be perfectly possible to abolish the upper earnings limit on the basis of an affirmative resolution and consequently have a much higher rate of tax on personal income. That was, essentially, the policy of the Labour party in the 1992 general election, which was when the Financial Secretary and one or two other members of the Committee were first elected to Parliament. [Interruption. ] Many moons ago the Financial Secretary says, and I know that that is not her position now. I think that that policy was abandoned after the 1992 general election.
I was interested, looking at Hansard from 16 December 1993, to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) took an intervention from the then hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen—now the Financial Secretary—in which she said:
“The hon. Member has spoken about the need to ensure that those contributing to the fund contribute enough to pay benefits. Why is it that the Government's proposals retain the ceiling on national insurance contributions, which throws the greatest burden on people on lower earnings?”
My hon. Friend then asked the then Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen if that was Labour party policy, and the response was:
“It is a question of fairness and the importance of ensuring that people contribute fairly to the national insurance fund.”—[Official Report, 16 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 1327.]
My argument is not to take on the merits of that case, although I disagree with it and I think that the Financial Secretary disagrees with it; it is not stated Government policy. However, it is perfectly possible for a future Government, if not the current one—but certainly not one that I would be involved in—to say, “We wish to raise”—[Interruption.]I am touched by the views of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West on where the future may lie. The fact is that the Bill will enable such a momentous policy and a substantial change in the way taxes are calculated to be carried out by simply abolishing the upper earnings limit. There is nothing within the proposed structures to prevent that from happening, and we therefore seek to deal with that objective in some of our amendments.
Can I also discuss the issue of the ratio that we discussed a little this morning? We pursued the matter with officials to try to properly understand what the requirements are and whether it is necessary to change the current arrangements. I think that there was some uncertainly in all parties as to what the exact numbers would be. I have gone away and done some sums on what the upper earnings limit would be on a weekly basis. The then Chancellor in his budget speech of 21 March 2007, Official Report, columns 826-27, stated that the top rate of income tax from April, 2009 will start at £43,000. I am not quite sure what methodology the Treasury used to translate that figure into a weekly amount, but if that is done on the basis of dividing that by 365 and then multiplying by seven, we end up with a figure of £824.66. If in those circumstances in 2009-10 the primary threshold is £110—we do not yet know if it will be that, but we know it will be £105 the previous year—the ratio of seven and a half which exists in the current legislation, would actually be sufficient.
To be fair, if the sum was done in a slightly different way—by simply dividing £43,000 by 52—we would end up with a figure of £826.92. That would be slightly over the limit. So, as the hon. Member for Taunton pointed out, seven and a half looks to be there or thereabouts. It might not do quite what is necessary, but it is very, very close. Is it therefore necessary, in these circumstances, to completely throw out the structure that we have, and could we not simply widen the ratio to somewhere between six and eight rather than six and half to seven and a half? Were we to do that, we would not only comfortably be able to meet the requirements on the basis of the numbers we have, but there would be quite some leeway.
Even on the basis of the primary threshold for 2009-10 remaining at £105—that is no increase at all from the year before—that would still enable the upper earnings limit to be raised to £43,800, well in advance of the £43,000 that we have in mind. If the primary threshold were to rise by £5 to £110 and we had a ratio of eight, we could increase the upper earnings limit to £45,886.

Jeremy Browne: One of the attractions of keeping the seven and a half multiplier as the upper limit is that if the Government want more leeway at the top of the scale, they would need to increase the bottom number—the £105 or £110 figure. That would have the helpful benefit of assisting some lower earners, who have missed out due to other tax changes in the Budget.

David Gauke: The hon. Gentleman is right, and, of course, this would be another option available to the Government if they were to find themselves short by a relatively small amount. That is an argument for maintaining the current ratio. It is a reasonable argument, and the criticism that could be made of amendment No.1 is that we are being too generous to the Government by allowing them to widen the bands in this way. But that is the intention behind amendment No.1, as well as amendment No. 2, which applies the same provisions within the equivalent legislation for Northern Ireland.
I should say a word about how the amendments work. Anyone who has just picked up the amendments and looked at amendment No. 1 could be forgiven for thinking that it is somewhat curious, because all it does is omit “half”. I should explain that in context. Section 5(3) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, as amended by the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, states that the upper earnings limit is seven times the primary threshold or that it
“exceeds or falls short of 7 times that sum by an amount not exceeding half that sum”.
I confess that the first time—indeed, the second, third and fourth times—I read that, I was somewhat confused. At one point I thought it meant something different. I will say, reasonably confidently, what I think it means. The “that sum” is the primary threshold: so, we are talking about seven times the primary threshold and about an amount not exceeding half the primary threshold. The primary threshold is £100 at the moment, so if the upper earnings limit is not seven times that, which is £700, then as long as it is within half of £100, or £50, then it complies with the ratio. I hope that makes it all terribly clear, Mr. Chope.
On that basis, by deleting “half”, I have not done much for the elegance of an already inelegant clause or section but, essentially, that means that as long as we are within an amount equivalent to the primary threshold on either side of seven times the primary threshold, then we comply with the ratio. That mechanism expands the ratio from between six and half and seven and a half to between six and eight.
The purpose behind the amendment, and subsequent ones, is to attempt to provide some protection for Parliament. It does not prevent the Government from making the changes to the tax system that were outlined in the 2007 Budget. We will hear whatever objections will be made, but all of us, on both sides of the Committee, believe that Parliament has an important role, particularly in the area of taxation, and should guard that role carefully. The current proposals give too much freedom to the Executive and too small a role for Parliament. Politicians from all parties have spoken about the importance of Parliament. Here is a practical example of where there is a problem. The amendment is, in some respects, a small but technical measure, but could prevent the sort of abuse that I outlined at the beginning of my remarks, where a Government may come in and make a fairly substantial change to the taxation system but through a means that involves little parliamentary scrutiny.

Rob Marris: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to omitting “half”, which I have been pondering? He will correct me if I misunderstood what he said—that omitting “half” would change the ratio from between six and a half and seven and a half to between six and eight. My understanding is that the “half” is a margin of error figure, so that it is around 7. So, if one omits “half”, it has to be spot on 7, it does not expand it to between six and eight.

David Gauke: The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point. That is how I understand it. He is right that section 5(3)(a) says that it has to be seven times, before then going on to the margin of error. I have not deleted that in its entirety. What I have deleted is “half”, where the margin of error is half the primary threshold. If we take out “half”, we just have the primary threshold. I hope that that clarifies the position. The margin of error—it was helpful of the hon. Gentleman to use that expression—is widened, becoming the value of the primary threshold both up and down, rather than half the primary threshold.
This is a modest amendment, which will not prevent the Government from achieving what they have set out to do. However, it will permit parliamentary scrutiny to continue and prevent any large-scale increase, or indeed abolition, of the upper earnings limit without appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.

Jane Kennedy: Let me add my words of appreciation to those offered by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire and say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Chope. This morning was an interesting experience—[ Interruption. ] I apologise if it was not quite as interesting for some members of the Committee as it was for others, but I certainly need debriefing about it to see how valuable it was. As I said, I had not expected a number of the questions. Sensibly, a lot of questions dealt with the figures, which was absolutely appropriate, and we had a thorough sitting. I hope that that means that we will have a fairer wind than we might otherwise have done this afternoon.
The hon. Gentleman made an elegant speech and he is always thoughtful when challenging what the Government are doing. He talked about a momentous change in the way in which the Government are allowed to set the rate of national insurance contributions. He said that nothing in the new structures would prevent a future Government from using the Bill as a lever significantly to increase tax rates. He was also concerned about parliamentary procedures and the opportunity to consider proposals properly.
I do not want to go too wide and I shall come to the amendments, Mr. Chope, but let me say at the outset that the Government’s reforms of the welfare state since 1997 reflect our aim of eradicating child poverty and supporting people to balance their work and family lives. The personal tax package that we discussed at some length this morning represents the next stage in our programme to reform the tax and benefit system. The Bill is required to ensure that those changes can be fully implemented and that the benefits of that package can be fully realised.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we cannot introduce a new ratio to calculate the upper national insurance contribution limit. We see no reason to reintroduce an arbitrary ratio, given our proposal that future changes to the upper earnings limit will be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. As we have made clear, removing the restriction on the upper earnings limit will provide for significant simplification and allow the two main rates of income tax and NICs to apply to the same bands of income, creating one of the simplest personal tax structures in any developed country.
Given that commitment, I see no reason why the 11 per cent. level at which employees stop paying NICs should be subject to legislative restrictions, when the point at which they start paying NICs is subject to none. We could apply a cap of a multiple of the primary threshold in the way that we have done, but there is no similar restriction on the level of the primary threshold, and we touched on that this morning.

David Gauke: The Financial Secretary raises a fair point about the restriction at the bottom end. Ideally, if one is going to have a restriction at the top end, one should have a restriction at the bottom so that one could lower it in such a way as to break the ratio. The Financial Secretary’s criticism is that there is no restriction at the bottom end, but there is of course a ratio. So, it would not be possible to reduce the primary threshold to a low figure unless the Government also reduced the upper earnings limit by a correspondingly low amount. In that sense, the continuation of the ratio protects both the top and the bottom.

Jane Kennedy: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. As we discussed this morning, the lower earnings threshold is aligned with the lower income tax threshold. We have been working to keep those in alignment for a considerable time. We are now seeking to align the upper level. Our primary goal is the policy objectives I was talking about earlier. Simplification being one of the major drivers of those, we will establish that link, and seek to maintain it. To reintroduce a legislative restriction on it would limit the Government in its work towards achieving its objectives.
As I have said, each year Members of both Houses will have the opportunity to debate the increase in the upper earnings limit, as the regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It was made clear at the introduction of the primary threshold that it was introduced to ensure that the point at which income tax and mixed liability begins is the same. The advantages of our approach are clear. It will reduce the burden on future legislative programmes, while retaining proper accountability to the House and an opportunity to debate the issue.
The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire used quotes from one of my earlier speeches as a rookie in 1993. I have a quote for him, although it is not one of his. It is interesting how rapidly hon. Members, when in Opposition, adopt a certain position. On 18 February 1997, when the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was Secretary of State for Wales, during the debate on the Welsh Development Agency Bill about the removal of the borrowing limit imposed on the Agency, he said that:
“The Bill provides that future increases of the financial limit shall be made by secondary legislation, using the affirmative resolution procedure. The advantages are clear.”
We have seized upon those advantages. The speech continued:
“It will reduce the burden on future legislative programmes while retaining proper accountability to the House and an opportunity to debate the issue.” —[Official Report, 18 February 1997; Vol. 290, c. 75.]
It is absolutely fair and proper that the Opposition express concern and seek to defend the right of the House to proper scrutiny of the Government’s actions, but secondary legislation is a perfectly proper, well tried and tested route by which to do that. I do not have any reason to believe that what we are proposing will undermine the ability of either this House or the other place to scrutinise legislation or Government decisions. I know that the hon. Gentleman has put the amendment forward in a probing manner and I ask that he not press it to a vote.

David Gauke: I am not entirely satisfied with that response and I do not think that that will surprise the Financial Secretary. I know that she says that there is a Government commitment to ensure that national insurance contributions are linked to higher rate income tax—indeed, we will turn to an amendment that relates specifically to that—but no protection will exist in legislation. It came out in the evidence session this morning that the purpose of the previous legislation was to prevent an abrupt increase in the upper earnings limit irrespective of national insurance contributions.
I am not persuaded by the Minister’s arguments or her plea to us not to press this. I think that I will press the amendment to a Division. We might well be outnumbered, but the principle remains the same. Parliamentary scrutiny will not be achieved adequately—

Jeremy Browne: I assure the hon. Gentleman that he has my support on this issue. The fact that the Labour party and the Conservatives have proven to be equally cavalier in their dealings with the House only strengthens my resolve to back him.

David Gauke: We are now up to four. Who knows how many on the Labour Benches are persuaded? I can see at least one Labour Member who has a reputation for defending parliamentary sovereignty, but I am not sure whether he is paying attention. With regard to the example given by the Minister, I was not quite sure it was a tax matter.

Jane Kennedy: It was a financial matter.

David Gauke: It involved money, but I am not sure that it involved the raising of revenue, and I think that is an important point. It is a principle—

Jane Kennedy: Level of borrowing limit.

David Gauke: A level of borrowing limit is somewhat different from a tax-raising power. I will press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

David Gauke: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out subsection (2).

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end add—
‘(4) In section 5(6) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (earnings limits and thresholds for Class 1 contributions), at end insert “and may not include any increase in the upper earnings limit in excess of the retail price index for the month of December in the preceding tax year.”’.
No. 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end add—
‘(4) In section 5(3) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (earnings limits and thresholds for Class 1 contributions), omit the words from “which” to the end of the subsection and insert “does not exceed the level of earnings at which the higher rate of income tax becomes payable.”’.
No. 6, in clause 2, page 1, line 19, leave out subsection (2).
No. 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, at end add—
‘(4) In section 5(6) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (c. 7) (earnings limits and thresholds for Class 1 contributions), at end insert “and may not include any increase in the upper earnings limit in excess of the retail price index for the month of December in the preceding tax year.”’.
No. 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, at end add—
‘(4) In section 5(3) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (earnings limits and thresholds for Class 1 contributions), omit the words from “which” to the end of the subsection and insert “does not exceed the level of earnings at which the higher rate of income tax becomes payable.”’.

David Gauke: The amendments essentially relate to the same issue. There is no need to repeat the full arguments, but there is a dismantling of the restrictions that apply to increases in the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions and, for that matter, the primary threshold. We think that that is undesirable and wish to address it.
Amendment No. 2 would remove clause 1(2). That in itself—the Minister might have been inclined to point this out—weakens the position because it would remove regulations specifying the upper earning limit from the list of those subject to the affirmative procedure. However, the amendment must be taken with amendment No. 3, which would carve out from those matters that can be dealt with by regulations, whether subject to the affirmative or negative procedure, any increases in the upper earnings limit in excess of the retail price index for the previous year.
We have been reasonable enough under amendment No. 3 to permit increases in the upper earnings limit in line with prices. However, if amendments Nos. 2 and 3 were agreed to and the Government wished to increase the upper earnings limit by a higher rate than the rate of inflation, which presumably will not be a routine occurrence, they would need to do so through primary legislation.

Rob Marris: I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment No. 3 because it would not do what he just suggested to the Committee. It relates to an increase in the retail price index in not the previous year, but the month of December, which is not what he intended it to say.

David Gauke: My understanding is that the retail price index is always an annual figure. I think that this wording is used in other legislation. I can see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from and I can check that, but I think that the same formula is used elsewhere. If I am wrong, he makes a very strong argument. I think that the amendment would do what I say it would, and if it would not, I will withdraw it.

David Wright: We are about to find out.

David Gauke: Indeed. While we are finding out—inspiration comes to us all—I will address amendment No. 4, which is the most persuasive amendment in the group
The Financial Secretary has reiterated today that the Government’s policy objective is to align the upper earnings limit with the point at which higher rate income tax starts to be paid. Indeed, that is what the then Chancellor said in his Budget speech of 21 March 2007. Earlier, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that if one prevents any increases in the upper earnings limit, one somehow prevents people from having a reduction in taxes. There was a reasonable assumption that this Bill would confirm the policy objective that the Government have maintained ever since the 2007 Budget: the link between the upper earnings limit and higher rate income tax. However, there is no link in the Bill.
The amendment, subject to any comments, suggestions or criticisms about its technical quality, would enable the Government to increase or decrease the upper earnings limit as they thought fit, but, when doing so, the higher rate income tax band would vary with it. It would formalise the policy objective that the Government have announced, which we support. The argument in the Budget was that this will simplify matters and we will have two rates on personal income. Amendment No. 4 would ensure that that happened.
We heard today from officials the view that announcements about the threshold for higher rate income tax will be made in the autumn statement—or the pre-Budget report, as it now is—at the same time that announcements are made for national insurance contribution thresholds. So, from a practical point of view, it appears that the Government are rightly going to follow up on their policy announcement. We heard from the Minister a couple of moments ago how they have maintained the link for the lower earnings limit. All that we are seeking to do is to formalise the link so that it is detailed in the Bill. If the Government ever wished to change their mind and break that link—if they wanted to abolish the upper earnings limit, to give an extreme example—they could always do so through further primary legislation.
Amendment No. 4 is essentially supportive of the Government’s objectives. It would merely formalise things and protect the position of Parliament, once again, by enabling it to scrutinise any departure from stated policy.

Jeremy Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman just clarify whether the amendment would enable the Conservative shadow Chancellor to introduce a flat-rate tax, which I understand he was considering, although he appears to have gone cooler on the idea in recent months?

Christopher Chope: Order. Before Mr. Gauke is tempted to answer that question, may I say that doing so would not be in order?

David Gauke: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Chope. I will not respond, other than to say that we favour flatter and simpler taxes. To the extent that this measure is a simplification, we welcome it, notwithstanding our concerns that the realignment also results in an increase in tax. However, essentially we support the principle.
The group includes amendments that are equivalent to amendments Nos. 2 to 4 in respect of the Northern Ireland provisions. I will be particularly interested to hear the Minister’s views on formalising the link between the upper earnings limit and higher rate income tax.

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful for the way in which these probing amendments have been put—she says hopefully! I shall talk about the group of amendments and perhaps mention amendments Nos. 3, 4, 7 and 8, which are intended to retain some form of restriction in primary legislation on the level of the upper earnings limit that can be set by secondary legislation. The rationale appears to be—again, it is similar to the debate that we have just had—that that provides a greater level of parliamentary control than is provided in the draft legislation. We debated that earlier, but I will come back to it.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 would amend clause 1 so that the upper earnings limit may not be increased by secondary legislation to a figure that is in excess of the retail prices index for the month of December in the preceding tax year. As clause 1 only applies to Great Britain, it appears that amendment No. 7 mirrors this restriction by amending clause 2 which is applicable to Northern Ireland, which is one of my favourite places.
There is a particular difficulty with amendments Nos. 3 and 7 in respect of linking the upper earnings limit to the retail prices index. These amendments would not allow the Government to align the upper earnings limit from 2009-10 with the point at which higher rate income tax becomes payable, which is one of our objectives, because they would not be able to raise the upper earnings limit in 2008-09 by £800 plus RPI. That would remove the main purpose of the Bill and a significant simplification of the national insurance contributions system.
We use the September RPI when calculating pensions and benefits uprating and the mixed re-rating procedures. That needs to take place before the beginning of the tax year. Those figures are also used in preparing the annual Government Actuary’s Department report. It would not be possible to use the December RPI figure and still have the necessary legislation and amended guidance in place in time. There would be a knock-on effect for software developers and employers. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West about the amendment. The cost attached to accepting the amendment would be significant; we anticipate it could be around £700 million. I have talked about the fact that we currently use the September retail prices index and that using the December retail prices index would create real difficulties for employers and payroll developers in amending their software ahead of the start of the new tax year.
Amendment No. 4 is interesting as it also amends clause 1 and appears to be an alternative to amendment No. 3. However, I understand why amendments Nos. 4 and 8 are grouped together. Amendment No. 4 aims to restrict the upper earnings limit so that it cannot be increased by a secondary legislation above the level of earnings at which the higher rate of income tax becomes payable.
I understand the logic behind amendment No. 4, but both theoretical and practical difficulties are associated with it. Income tax is an annual charge and is calculated on a cumulative basis, but national insurance is based on an earnings period that is normally weekly or monthly. Liability is calculated each time earnings are paid, which means that, in legislation, the upper earnings limit is a weekly figure whereas the level at which the higher rate of income tax becomes payable is an annual figure. If amendments Nos. 4 and 8 were accepted, the weekly upper earnings limit could be set at any figure up to £39,825 based on the 2007-08 tax year. [Hon. Members: “A week?”] Per week. The upper earnings limit for 2007-08 is currently £670 per week. The amendment would allow the upper earnings limit to be increased by up to 60 times its current level, which is far in excess of what we want to do. It could allow the Government of the day to raise millions of pounds of additional national insurance contributions and I am sure that is not what Opposition Members intended.
Another reason why the amendment is substantially flawed is that the level at which the higher rate of income tax is to be set does not become law until after the upper earnings limit for that tax year has been set. The weekly upper earnings limit is set by regulations that come into force on 6 April each year, which means that the regulations must be laid before 6 April. Income tax is subject to the Finance Bill procedure and the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, which allows for changes to apply from the beginning of the tax year. I am not sure whether Opposition Members intended to bring the national insurance system into the Finance Bill but, as we discussed this morning, it would take primary legislation to do that. It is certainly not the Government’s intention to do so.
On amendment Nos. 2 and 6, the upper earnings limit can currently be raised by regulations subject to the negative resolution procedure. Under our proposals there would have to be a debate in both Houses before it could be raised. Amendment No. 2 seems to remove the requirement for the affirmative resolution procedure if either amendment Nos. 3 or 4 find favour with the Committee.
The change proposed in the Bill should not give cause for concern in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. The House always considers the affirmative resolutions that come before it extremely carefully and I assure the Committee that, as the Minister who often has to reply to such resolutions, one feels thoroughly scrutinised as a result of those debates. The amendments taken together or separately to leave the upper earnings limit to the RPI or to the higher rate of tax are unworkable for the reasons I have explained. I understand why the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire wanted to probe the Government’s position on some of those ideas, but I recommend that the Committee resist the amendments.

David Gauke: I am grateful for the Financial Secretary’s informative explanation. As I mentioned, amendments Nos. 2 and 6 need to be taken with amendments Nos. 3 and 7 because, as she rightly says, in isolation, amendments Nos. 2 and 6 would weaken the position.
On amendments Nos. 3 and 7, her remarks that September should be used for the date as opposed to December make a strong argument. I will read her remarks carefully, but if the amendments that we tabled had referred to September rather than December, I am not sure whether there would be an overwhelmingly strong argument against them, given what we heard this morning. If the Government are able to align national insurance contributions and income tax, it ought to be possible to look at the way in which the upper earnings limit is increased, in such a way as to provide a restriction on it in the same way as increases in thresholds for income tax have been since the days of the Rooker-Wise amendment, somewhat before my time. We will not press amendments Nos. 3 and 7 and consequently will not press amendments Nos. 2 and 6.
On amendments Nos. 4 and 8, I take the technical point that the Financial Secretary raises with regard to income tax being done on an annual basis and national insurance contributions being done on a weekly basis. As a consequence, technically it would appear that these amendments would give the Government greater flexibility than we intended and would, to all intents and purposes, be consistent with the Labour party’s 1992 manifesto. They would effectively enable the abolition of the upper earnings limit if any Government wanted to do so.
The amendments are therefore ineffective, but we will look at this issue again. If the technical point can be resolved and if there is an opportunity to look at this matter in a corrected form, we will do so. Given the comments about the interpretation of amendment No. 4 that presumably come from the Treasury, we will not press it and I apologise to my hon. Friends who might have been looking forward to another valiant effort in defending parliamentary accountability. [Interruption.] I have got troops behind me, but I not sure that they are of sufficient number. We may well have right on our side, but we will fight this battle on another occasion.

Mark Field: I am afraid that the word “another” applies not to myself, but to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow. I think that he had other duties downstairs, listening to the great joys of the Olympics and the national lottery. I suspect that if we were to have a Division there, we might lose by slightly more than we would lose in a Division here.

David Gauke: In light of the comments made by the Financial Secretary, I will not press any of the amendments. However, we will look again at the issue raised by amendment No. 4 again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Additional pension: upper accrual point to replace upper earnings limit from 2009-10

Justine Greening: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 3, page 2, line 29, at end add—
‘(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, this section shall not have effect between the dates 1st April 2012 and 31st March 2015.
(6) The Secretary of State may, before 1st April 2012 and in each subsequent year until 31st March 2014, apply the provisions of this section for a period not exceeding one year, by order made by statutory instrument.
(7) No order may be made by the Secretary of State under subsection (6) unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.’.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in clause 3, page 2, line 29, at end add—
‘(5) This section shall cease to have effect on 1st April 2012 unless, before that date, both Houses of Parliament have by resolution approved an order laid before them by the Secretary of State under section 150A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (annual up-rating of basic pension etc. and standard minimum guarantee).’.

Justine Greening: The amendments relate to the discussion that we had, not so much in the evidence session today, but on Second Reading before Christmas. One of the major points that was discussed was that the Bill is part of an overall package of pension reform. It is a key component of a pension reform that achieved cross-party consensus. We raised our concern that in the Budget and pre-Budget report, which signalled the Government’s desire to bring forward the beginning of flat-rating of the state second pension, there seemed to be movement from the original pension reform package that we had agreed. That package came out of the Turner commission report and out of a desire, as the Government said, to try to simplify the national insurance and income tax system. We supported the pension reform package. At the time, although we had concerns about taking away the link between the extra additional earnings contributions people paid and what they then got back in the state second pension, we recognised that the pension package was a question of give and take and of what we wanted to achieve overall. Our concerns related to the fact that this was the “take” part of that package, and there was a big question mark over the “give” part, which was the re-establishment of the earnings link.
These clauses try to tease out from the Government whether we can make progress on getting some certainty about re-establishing that link. On Second Reading, Members raised concerns about the lack of certainty as to when that will happen. We discussed the fact that the impact assessment provided by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs identified 2.1 million people, who would have been paying income tax above the upper earnings limit and who would have been contracted out of the state second pension. Those individuals
“would either see a reduction in their take-home pay as they will get a lower rebate on their national insurance contributions than would otherwise have been the case or a reduction of the money that goes into their pension scheme”
There are clearly many people—2.1 million, to be precise—who are assessed as losing from these changes. We must know that the gains are going to happen, and when. The timing of that link was critical, and I am concerned that we have not had much certainty from the Government about whether they view re-establishing the earnings links as being affordable, or when that will happen.
Based on the evidence session today, my greater concern is that, at the time that the alignment of the upper earnings limit and the upper accruals point took place in the Budget 2007, there was not at all a clear understanding as to what impact this would have on people. Not only were options still being discussed as to how to deliver on this 2030 time frame for achieving the flat-rate state second pension, there was apparently no costing of the options because they clearly had not been worked up at the time. It seems the Treasury waded into this national insurance change without a good enough understanding of the breadth and nature of the impact it would have, particularly given that many of the people affected will be the very same people whom the Institute for Fiscal Studies has identified as losers from the Budget 2007.
These amendments are therefore all the more important in trying to bring some certainty to the process of delivering the pension reform package. Before I talk about the amendments themselves, can I ask the Minister to talk about the 2030 time frame when she responds, and why that particular date is so important? One of the other ways of achieving flat-rating would have been to make the changes that were made at the Budget, but then to allow the flat-rating to continue as planned, aligned with the re-establishment of the earnings link, and then have that flat-rating achieved at a slightly later date than 2030-31. Many Conservative Members would like to understand a little better why that 2030 time frame is so important that we have to create even more losers than we would have done if the Government had taken no action.
On Second Reading we were only given limited assurances by the Minister about when the earnings link for the basic state pension would be re-established. During my time serving on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, the Secretary of State gave us, in the evidence session, what was I think his annual departmental review. I pressed him on when he would be able to re-establish the earnings link and he used a phrase that has been much talked about, that essentially the earnings link would be re-established at 2012, or at any event by the end of that Parliament, subject to affordability. I spent what felt like a long 15 minutes trying to get the Secretary of State to say whether he felt that the affordability aspect of re-establishing the earnings link took precedence over the 2012 time frame that was clearly the aspiration—if I can call it that—of the Government. I also asked him whether, if re-establishing the earnings link in 2012 was viewed as unaffordable given the length of economic cycles, he thought that perhaps by 2015 the economic cycle and economic situation would have turned around so much that re-establishing the link would suddenly become affordable in a long-term sense.
I did not make any progress—if anything, the message I got was that affordability was critical. That is why it is of particular concern now, given that the Government are obviously concerned about inflationary effects to the extent that police officers and prison officers have had their review board pay rises turned down or not accepted. Perversely, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families has today accepted the pay review board outcome for teachers. Conversely, only last week in Parliament the Secretary of State for Justice said that he had not accepted the report of the prison officers’ pay review body because of the “exceptional economic circumstances”.
It is very important therefore for the Minister to talk about what her assessment is, from a Treasury perspective, of the affordability test that the Government have set themselves for re-establishing the earnings link. Because of that uncertainty, the amendments are trying to provide some certainty. If the earnings link is not re-established and we continue with the debate, we should not allow the Bill to mean that all that is being delivered for people in this country is giving—paying more national insurance contributions but not getting anything in return.
There are two alternatives. Amendment No. 9 essentially leads to an annual reassessment of the Bill, to give the House a chance to understand whether the re-establishment of the earnings link is on the Government’s agenda and will happen, or whether there is simply continued rhetoric with no delivery. That would mean that in the time frame in which the Government has said that it will look to re-establish the earnings link—mooted as 2012 to around 2015—we would annually have to reaffirm the impact of that part of the Bill. In terms of delivering the overall pension reform package, that would provide a safeguard for those people who are paying more—that they would not be paying more to get nothing in return.
Amendment No. 10 is harsher in many respects. It says that there is a time frame of 2012. Unless at that point resolutions have been put before the House, clearly guaranteeing when the earnings link will be re-established, the Bill would, by definition, have to lapse. The consensus would have been broken and the decoupling of the changes to national insurance and to the basic state pension would have been done to such an extent that the pension reform that we all agreed would not have been delivered. I hope that the Financial Secretary can use the opportunity to give us more assurances about the Government’s thinking on when they see the earnings link being restored. The amendments are designed to tease out how confident the Government are that they can deliver on the words that we have listened to in the House about re-establishing that earnings link.

Rob Marris: I welcome you, Mr. Chope, to the Chair. This is my first speech to the Committee and I do not know if I have to declare an interest as an earning member of the public who will be affected by the changes proposed by the Bill—earning only as an MP and not moonlighting like many Conservative MPs.

Mark Field: By 2012, moonlighting will be all that the hon. Gentleman will be doing.

Rob Marris: Though perhaps not as financially successful as the hon. Gentleman, like him, I was earning more before I came than I am now, but I do not seek to boost my reduced earnings by moonlighting. On the more substantive point, I thank the hon. Member for Putney for making something exceedingly clear to me. Hon. Members on this side of the House have long thought that affordability for the state bears no relationship whatsoever to Conservative spending plans and does not enter the equation. It does with this Government and we are absolutely right to bear it in mind with whatever measures we propose to improve our society even further than we have in the past eleven and a half years.

Philip Dunne: I rise to support the amendments, because I felt that the evidence given by the Financial Secretary and her officials at the interesting pre-legislative session did not cast any further light on the Government’s willingness to commit themselves to any form of timetable for restoring the earnings link. The amendments are designed to tease that out, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will address herself to that point in her remarks. My near neighbour, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, is being a little harsh on the Opposition in his assault on our willingness to accept fiscal rectitude and spending diligence. It is correct that we have been calling for the Government to restore the earnings link and to come up with a definitive timetable for doing so. That is, frankly, all we are trying to do in this debate in relation to these amendments. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

Jane Kennedy: I wonder which party disconnected the link in the first place.
This has been a useful debate and I will address my remarks to the amendments. I am conscious that we may be interrupted, but I will try and deal with the amendments as succinctly as I can. The hon. Member for Putney made her case in a well argued and reasonable way. She asked why withdrawing the earnings-related state second pension by 2030 is so crucial—why that date? It is quite straight forward. The date 2030 was recommended by the Pensions Commission in order to give defined benefit schemes time to adjust to the withdrawal of contracted-out rebates. It is part of a costed package of measures. If we extended past 2030, we would need to revisit the cost. It is also needed to provide certainty to savers about what their pension position would be.

Justine Greening: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for letting me intervene so early. She is cherry-picking a little; that same Pensions Commission actually suggested re-establishing the earnings link in 2009-10 and by 2012 at the latest.

Jane Kennedy: I will come to that point shortly when I talk about the earnings link. I shall deal first with amendment No. 9, which is concerned only with 2012 and beyond. I am a little confused: it is bit strange that hon. Members seem to be agreeing with me about the early introduction of the upper accrual point from 2009, which will allow us to keep to the timetable for state second pension flat-rating, but they now seem to be opposing the consensus achieved during the passage of the Pensions Bill last year by scuppering that same timetable when we get to 2012. I am not going to make a big issue about the consensus as I appreciate that, in the context of this Bill, we are actually debating the matter in a very good humoured way. I am not going to make big accusations about where people stand on the consensus. However, the amendment requires the upper accrual point of £770, as set out in the Bill, to cease to have effect between April 2012 and March 2015. What it does not do is to give any hint whatever about what is to happen after that date. Importantly, the amendment introduces uncertainty for many employers, who need to know in advance what the upper accruals point will be and who cannot wait for the matter to be settled by long and unnecessary debates—if you will forgive me, Mr. Chope—as I believe would be in this case, in the House.
However, the amendment as drafted is also fundamentally flawed. The effect of preventing clause 3 from operating in this way would mean reverting to the position as set out in the Pensions Act 2007. The Committee will recall that that Act gave us the power to set the upper accrual point from the flat-rating introduction year at the rate of the previous years’ upper earnings limit, or any other amount so determined.
Before I turn to amendment No. 10, I want to deal with the point made by the hon. Lady about creating more losers. We touched upon that this morning, but I want to get it into the record at this point of the discussion. It is important to remember that the impact assessment to which she referred looked only at the national insurance changes in the Budget 2007. Most employees earning at the upper earnings limit, or above, will be better off using the 2008-09 tax year, and I gave a detailed example of that this morning.
I turn to amendment No. 10, dealing with the earnings link. An unintended consequence of removing the cap on state second pension accruals would be that all earnings above the lower earnings limit would count for state second pension purposes. That would also have a knock-on effect on contracted-out rebates, which are paid on the same band of earnings as that on which state second pension accrues: that is, the rebate will be paid on all earnings over the lower earnings limit. The purpose of amendment No. 10, and in part amendment No. 9, as we have accepted, is to bring about a discussion on the timing of the up-rating of the basic state pension with earnings. I am delighted to cross swords with the Opposition on that. During the next Parliament, we will link the up-rating of the basic state pension with average earnings over the long term. Our objective is to do that in 2012, but in any event, we are required by the Pensions Act 2007 to do it by the end of that Parliament at the latest.

Justine Greening: I have a sense of dÃ(c)jÃ vu because I remember asking this question to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. What the Minister is saying is that if there is an assessment in 2012 that re-establishing the earnings link is unaffordable, and that assessment persists to the end of that Parliament, a possibly outgoing Administration would re-establish the earnings link, knowing full well that it was unaffordable for the country, and that that commitment to re-establish at any event takes precedence to affordability. Which is the most important driver: is it affordability, or is it this commitment at any event by the end of the Parliament to re-establish the earnings link?

Jane Kennedy: We made clear that our commitment is subject to affordability and the fiscal position. However, we in this party are in a better position to look forward and say that, given the way that we have had success in managing the economy to date, we believe that we can introduce the earnings link in the next Parliament. Our proposals give people a legislative guarantee that that will happen and they have been costed on that basis. We do not make spending commitments such as this, certainly not Treasury Ministers—

Mark Field: The Minister is talking to the lot behind her in regard to that, rather than to those on this side of the Committee. Does she not accept that she has used the word “guarantee”? This is anything but a guarantee. There is uncertainty in the system, not least because we do not have fixed-term Parliaments and have no idea whether 2012 will be at the end of a Parliament or at the start of one that might lead all the way through to 1217, at which point the affordability trigger comes into place. She used the word guarantee, but this is anything but a guarantee. There is a great deal of uncertainty, and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney tried to add a level of certainty to that uncertain picture.

Jane Kennedy: We have already committed to make an announcement at the beginning of the next Parliament, specifying well in advance of 2012 the date for introducing the earnings link for the basic state pension. We basically have a straightforward disagreement here. We believe that we will clearly be in a position to take forward the re-establishment of that link.

Jeremy Browne: The Minister keeps talking about the next Parliament, but we do not know whether there will be a general election this year, followed by a subsequent election in 2012. It might be that 2012 is arrived at not in the next Parliament, but in the one after that.

Jane Kennedy: I remember an enjoyable by-election campaign in Eddisbury in Cheshire, which the current hon. Member for Eddisbury of course won. Our campaign, however, was based on a creative slogan, “Vote Labour or the fox gets it.” I distinctly remember the debate, which was a flagging up of our commitment to a totally separate issue, which I do not intend to debate today. I mentioned it because, given the degree of concern that the Opposition clearly have about whether their policies would allow them the affordable environment within which to re-establish the link, we could well approach the next general election with a clear campaign.
We are committed to doing that and have demonstrated our ability to deliver an economic environment within which it would be possible to do it. As far as the Conservative party is concerned, all we have is the fact that it was that party that decoupled it in the first place. I would be keen to let the British people make their choice about that issue, based upon the history.
As the Committee knows, our first priority has always been to tackle pensioner poverty. As a result, more than 2 million pensioners have been lifted out of absolute poverty and more than 1 million have been lifted out of relative poverty. Over the past 10 years, we have increased the amount of money received by pensioners faster than earnings have increased year on year.

Christopher Chope: Order. I hesitate to interrupt, but does that strictly relate to the terms of the amendment?

Jane Kennedy: You are absolutely right, and thank you for that guidance, Mr. Chope. With regard to the amendment, we have already put into legislation, as I have said repeatedly, the commitment to up-rate the pension credits standard minimum guarantee in line with earnings. Earnings up-rating is part of a package of complementary reforms that balance affordability with fairness, and that includes the abolition of contracting out on a defined, contribution basis and simplifying the state second pension. Trying to unpick the timing of this element with those reforms fundamentally changes that package.
We are bringing forward the introduction of the upper approval point only to keep us within the pension reform timetable. I accept that we have had a rousing debate on our commitment to restoring the link, but other issues have been in there as well. I hope that this has been helpful and that my hon. Member for Putney will not press the amendment to a vote.

Justine Greening: I am grateful to the Minister for running through her arguments, particularly those relating to the 2030 time frame, which I found especially helpful. I feel that, in picking out that date, she has cherry-picked from the Turner commission’s proposals with regard to time frames for when particular things should happen. As I said in my intervention, the Turner commission proposed re-establishing the earnings link much sooner than will possibly happen.
I feel that we have not made any progress on understanding the certainty with which we know the earning link will be re-established and am disappointed by that. I clearly understand the Minister’s argument. The phrase about re-establishing the earnings link by the beginning of 2012, but in any event before the end of the next Parliament, subject to affordability, is intellectually inconsistent, for the reasons that I have laid out. Something that is not affordable in 2012 may well not be affordable in 2015, so putting that in place may be irresponsible for a Government that may be calling an election shortly.

Jane Kennedy: To deal with the issue now—it is about the delay to implementation, which is what the hon. Lady is talking about. The Pensions Commission’s judgment was that a short delay beyond 2010 would not seriously undermine the overall direction of the proposed reform, although a five-year delay probably would. Should her amendment not be considered in that light?

Justine Greening: I take the Minister’s point, but a five-year delay for Turner would take us up to 2015, which is one of the dates when the earnings link could possibly be re-established. I remember that at the time the delay was flagged up by many people, inside and outside this place, as one of the possible problems with the pensions reform—that it was not happening fast enough. I am still not clear on the affordability test and how important that is vis-Ã -vis the term used of a “guarantee” for the earnings link.
I am not going to press the amendments to a vote, because I am sure that the debate about re-establishing the earnings link and when it will take place will continue in this place and in the other place. My objective with the amendments was to see if we could get any more certainty. We have not managed that, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Rob Marris: We have all grasped the broad direction of the Bill. If the changes proposed were not made, some people, because of the accumulating effect, would get higher rebates as the thresholds went up. That would benefit the wealthy in society, who would be getting those higher rebates from opting out of the state second pension. Alternatively, if not opted out, they could be getting a state second pension based on a greater amount of earnings than intended.
My question to my right hon. Friend bears in mind not only her current position but her previous one as a Minister for Northern Ireland. Another distinguished Member, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, was also a Minister for Northern Ireland and is with us today. My understanding is that clause 3 and the schedules consequent upon it do not apply to Northern Ireland. That is in contradistinction to Scotland, where national insurance contributions are reserved matters—similarly in Wales. In Northern Ireland, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, they are in a different category. Therefore, such issues fall to be dealt with by the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland—I stand to be corrected, but I think that the Minister is Margaret Ritchie. What discussions have my right hon. Friend or her officials had with the people in Northern Ireland, including the Minister for Social Development, as to whether they propose, within that jurisdiction under the devolved powers, to bring in an upper accrual point similar to the one that will certainly be introduced for England under the Bill?
If they do not do so—they have power not to, as I understand it—we could have in the United Kingdom individuals who are higher rate taxpayers getting more rebates in Northern Ireland for opting out of the state second pension and/or a higher state second pension in due course. In Northern Ireland we could have no flat rating, as we call it, until 2035, rather than 2031, which would be the import of the Bill in England were the changes to go through. I foresee, perhaps wrongly, that we might have all kinds of complications for people who work in England and then get a job in Northern Ireland and start paying or opting out or whatever at different levels and so on, or somebody who works in England for a lot of their life and then retires to Northern Ireland, perhaps because of family connections, with a different state second pension regime. I would like to know from my right hon. Friend what kind of liaison there has been with Northern Ireland because we could get into a situation where, perhaps without having thought a great deal about it, we would have two-tier provision within the UK. That seems to me, with regard to pensions, a somewhat surprising position to be in, with the full jurisdiction that we have within our country.

Jane Kennedy: I do not intend to go into too much detail on the clause, but the question that my hon. Friend asked is a useful one. He is right that the upper accrual point relates to the state second pension, which is a transferred matter under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It is therefore a matter on which the Northern Ireland Assembly can legislate. Although Northern Ireland has a separate body of social security law, it operates in parity with the rest of the UK. It is anticipated that provision to introduce an upper accrual point for Northern Ireland will be made by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
My hon. Friend asked me specifically what liaison there has been with the authorities in Northern Ireland. Obviously, officials in HMRC and the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland have discussed the matter in detail, including in the autumn, but I am hoping to pay a visit to Northern Ireland to discuss one or two issues relating to HMRC. I have not had an opportunity to discuss the matter with Members in Northern Ireland, but it may be that if I can arrange a date for that visit, I will do so as a result of his prompting today, for which I am grateful.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the House.

Jane Kennedy: May I quickly say thank you for chairing this short Bill, Mr. Chope? I thank all hon. Members and right hon. Members who participated for their scrutiny and the humorous way in which the debate has been held.

Ian Davidson: Before the Minister stops, will she tell us what actually happened to the fox?

Jane Kennedy: I am afraid that the other party won.

David Gauke: I think that that was the second by-election that my party had won in about 15 years, so perhaps it was not the best slogan. I thank you, Mr. Chope, and the Clerks for your guidance today. I thank the Minister for her openness and co-operation. The Committee has been conducted with good humour and we have been able to draw out one or two interesting points. I hope that it will be informative for those who study these issues closely.

Christopher Chope: I am sure that those kind remarks will be much appreciated. I thank members of the Committee for their co-operation and the Hansard writers, who had quite a difficult problem this morning. I also thank the police, the messengers and everybody else who was involved in ensuring that this Bill, the first that I have chaired from start to finish, made progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Committee rose at one minute to Six o’clock.